It is commonly assumed that capitalism has created an a-emotional world dominated by bureaucratic rationality; …
My second observation is that throughout the twentieth century, there has been an increased emotional androgynization of men and women, due to the fact that capitalism tapped into and mobilized the emotional resources of service workers, and to the fact that concomitantly to their entry into the workforce, feminism called on women to become autonomous, self-reliant, and conscious of their rights inside the private sphere. Thus, if the sphere of production put affect at the center of models of sociability, intimate relationships increasingly put at their center a political and economic model of bargaining and exchange.
It is commonly assumed that capitalism has created an a-emotional world dominated by bureaucratic rationality; …
The notion of “communication” – and of what I would like to almost call “communicative competence” – is an outstanding example of what Foucault called an episteme, a new object of knowledge which in turn generates new instruments and practices of knowledge.
[...]
“Communication” is thus a technology of self-management relying extensively on language and on the proper management of emotions but with the aim of engineering inter- and intra-emotional coordination.
It is commonly assumed that capitalism has created an a-emotional world dominated by bureaucratic rationality; …
The critique aged well, though some other parts did not
5 stars
I'll start with the only thing that I didn't enjoy: the fact that Eva Illouz repeatedly uses the categories of "man" and "woman" as though they had very distinct borders and as though they were the only two possibilities out there. When she writes that the professional realm has been feminized, under capitalist modernity, and the intimate realm encourages autonomy and self-determination, which are male qualities, it irked me tremendously, almost enough to make me want to quit the book.
However, the critique and the historical perspective in the book are both very valuable. In the three chapters, Illouz puts forth three main points that build up on each other: 1. that psychoanalysis took shape in the midst of rising individualism, and gave a language to an institutionalized form of psychology that, then, permeated everything from the professional to the intimate spheres 2. that the public / professional sphere …
I'll start with the only thing that I didn't enjoy: the fact that Eva Illouz repeatedly uses the categories of "man" and "woman" as though they had very distinct borders and as though they were the only two possibilities out there. When she writes that the professional realm has been feminized, under capitalist modernity, and the intimate realm encourages autonomy and self-determination, which are male qualities, it irked me tremendously, almost enough to make me want to quit the book.
However, the critique and the historical perspective in the book are both very valuable. In the three chapters, Illouz puts forth three main points that build up on each other:
1. that psychoanalysis took shape in the midst of rising individualism, and gave a language to an institutionalized form of psychology that, then, permeated everything from the professional to the intimate spheres
2. that the public / professional sphere disguised class inequalities under a blanket psychological myth-building about "personality" and the private / intimate sphere stripped people of their ability to live with alterity by turning intimate connections into a commodity and applying market dynamics to it
3. that online dating and the internet in general has captured the process of commodification of the private sphere and has exacerbated it into its textual and visual forms, through words and images; this, in turn, erased the embodied experience of connection and encouraged people to treat togetherness as a quantifiable phenomenon that can be optimized.
In the final chapter of the book, Illouz makes the excellent point that psychoanalysis and critique gave us two distinct things: both the means to thrive and be resilient and also the means to become individualistic, sick and disconnected. She cautions against throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Marin Bucea trăiește de pe o zi pe alta. Născut în Balș, în anii de …
This is the kind of sci-fi that doubles as tech advocacy. Dragoș Costache shows, and does not tell, but even when he tells instead of showing, the inner monologue of his characters is relatable and entertaining. The problematization of AI technology runs through this sci-fi, touching on everything for what it means to lead a good life to what future we can look forwards to. I've enjoyed every single page of Ultra Marin.
This is the kind of sci-fi that doubles as tech advocacy. Dragoș Costache shows, and does not tell, but even when he tells instead of showing, the inner monologue of his characters is relatable and entertaining. The problematization of AI technology runs through this sci-fi, touching on everything for what it means to lead a good life to what future we can look forwards to. I've enjoyed every single page of Ultra Marin.
